User talk:Spangineer/archive03

Hathi Trust
Hello,

If it was only US restricted, I could just use a proxy. This tool is also needed, but I can’t use it with a proxy. And there is a list here too: Leo Tolstoy... and probably many other books if we could make a semi-automated retrieval. Thanks a lot for your help. Yann (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Index:Black Beauty (1877).djvu almost proofread
The above can now be upgraded to Index:Proofread—the only thing needed is an image on Page:Black Beauty (1877).djvu/6. Could you please put the image on this page as soon as possible. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Great work, thanks! —Spangineer (háblame) 17:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help tidying, do you know how I'd add a link to a relevant portal (Portal:Vegetarianism in this case for Lo, the Soya Bean! A Substitute for Meat, Fish and Fats) - I can figure out how to link the portal to the article, but not the article to the portal. StateOfAvon (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added it, by adding  on a new line within the header template.  That's the portal "parameter" of the header template, and it can be used in any article to link to a relevant portal. —Spangineer (háblame) 21:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So I just tried Marriage and Kinship Among the Ancient Israelites with your tricks...it looks like it worked, yes? StateOfAvon (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * State Usurpation of Parental Functions doesn't seem to have worked, it cuts off early...any ideas what I did wrong? StateOfAvon (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox etc
fwiw... there's also a Template:Header/dyn I never finished either. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 17:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer; this is helpful. I've got a few ideas here... —Spangineer (háblame) 17:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My only wish is to resolve this if possible before the next "upgrade" (or the one after that, etc.) forces our hand anyway. Feel free to hack away at either DYN - keep in mind these were experiments prior to recent implementations to the header/sister templates and two paths were created on purpose (one with the presence of text notes along with custom links ( blue notes field ) and one with no text notes along with cutom link boxes (no blue notes field invoked). These redundancies should be streamlined in the end product. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 17:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that a horizontal line of sister links above the notes section would be cleaner, similar to the middle bar on Executive Order 13252. I agree though, don't create the box (whether notes or links) unless it's needed. —Spangineer (háblame) 17:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That might not be optimal. My cite-bar and the customary blue-notes field would be optional div "rows" (at times wrapping an HTML table of only 1 row) called separately only when needed as done on the fr.WS -- even then I connot find an example of anyone actually doing this yet there. This is partly why I believe the trend is "going to be" to call these as, what amounts to Template:Notes or Template:Cite-bar here on en.WS, single row tables wrapped in an unused or optional DIV at the bottom of the familar green navigation header. I may have assumed too much but I don't see how else to allow for later dynamic layouts if dynamic substitutions to header/note rows are not possible at the same time. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 17:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'll have to look into this more, or perhaps defer to someone who can crank this stuff out faster than I can. —Spangineer (háblame) 18:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The Velveteen Rabbit
Thank you for pushing it through; I am excited to see it on the main page! - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Commons move request ("just" 2 this time!)
Hoping you won't mind two more moves for me... I got the pub. date wrong on the following:

Lastly, since I have your "ear"—with regard to the Stops of Various Quills text: Would you mind taking a look at the title formatting on this page, and see if you can come up with something better than what I came up with? The text has been proofread other than that page, and I am trying to get the book featured-eligible, if WS were to ever consider it in the future... Thank you again for your time and trouble, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just did the file moves. That particular page looks fine to me; good job! —Spangineer (háblame) 13:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I wasn't sure if using a running header there was "good practice" or not... Thanks also for the corrected long s... I just updated the Index's progress to Proofread!  Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

COTUS
Just a heads up...

I see you uploaded the 2009 pocket edition which is fine but you may not be aware that GPO Access is being phased out for FDsys (all born digital docs plus carry authentication by GPO) within a few weeks. Is it possible to source using the FDsys version instead? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I doubt there's any difference between the two but I converted the FDsys one to djvu and uploaded it over the other one. —Spangineer (háblame) 21:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

<< yesterday believing it was best not to wait any longer & before the References to Wikisource project got around to tinkering with it unneccessarily in the interim. Afterward, I finally remembered what I forgot to discuss with you the last time this came up -


 * ... what, if any, "manner" of section labeling should we put in place so that any future works that may re-print sections or swaths of the COTUS in them can be added/substituted by using LSTs from this version easily?

— George Orwell III ( talk ) 23:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What are you envisioning? I guess I haven't seen many examples of "Work A" using LST/ to quote "Work B," so my inclination is to not worry about it.  To me it makes more sense to connect Work A and Work B with a link, rather than transcluding one into the other.  But those are just my initial thoughts. —Spangineer (háblame) 01:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Forgot all about the Analysis & Interpretation stuff for example, eh? These "were" the existing annotated sub-pages but never got developed past the first 2 or 3 clauses it seems. At the outset of each A&I section - the clause, section, etc. in question is restated and, at times, is repeated throughout the body as topics and subjects shift. The same dynamic is also in play with certain Supreme Court opinions where the a clause, section, etc. being cited as a foundation for the opinion is frequently provided in the footnotes or within the content itself for context and so on. I see the value in assigning logical and uniform designations now just in case some need or benefits arise requiring it later on. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 02:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This could get really complicated. A thorough job of this (allowing LST for each sentence? each clause?) would be required in order to do this well.  But, for just one example, look at the first sentence of A1-S9:
 * The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
 * Now look at #5 of Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. It quotes the Constitution, saying, "that the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808."  Here we have different capitalization, punctuation, and spelling, plus it uses only a portion of the clause.  And what do we do with that comma after "eight"?  It needs to appear when the complete clause is desired, but not when only a portion is.  Off the top of my head I don't think that it's possible to use nesting sections.
 * There may be a few examples where it is absolutely assured that the quoted version of the Constitution exactly matches our version of the Constitution. Perhaps A&I is an example of this (though it should be proofread to be sure).  But SCOTUS decisions and many other works are bound to vary from the "official" Wikisource Constitution.  In order to use LST, double-proofreading would be required (first against the actual page, and then against the "official" Constitution).
 * These issues, plus the inherent complexity in using LST (it's definitely not newbie-friendly), lead me to conclude that it's more trouble than it's worth. —Spangineer (háblame) 15:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK then - that's why a sounding board is beneficial :-) Thanks. — George Orwell III ( talk ) 18:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I botched an Index move
If you're around, I was wondering if you knew how to resolve the following "move" error I made here on WS. For reference: Apologies, Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Index talk:A Little Pretty Pocket-book.djvu
 * 2) My Talk page
 * 3) Scriptorium
 * I think the issue has been resolved... Thank you anyway! Londonjackbooks (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad it worked out! —Spangineer (háblame) 13:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too (understatement). Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Long-s thread on IL's page
Spangineer, please see: User_talk:Inductiveload as it involves ls, which I know you've been involved with. Thanks. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I, Pencil
Spangineer -- you added I, Pencil a few years ago. I'm now looking at what seems to be the 1958 edition. This rendition has various headings, e.g., "Innumerable Antecedents", "No One Knows", "No Master Mind", and "Testimony Galore", in the text whereas your edition has but one, different heading. So I wonder, did you give us a later addition? As I understand this Wikisource edition, it is or should be the 1958 edition. What are your thoughts? Thanks. --Srich32977 (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What Social Classes Owe to Each Other has been validated
I enjoyed reading as I validated... I made mostly minor changes, as your proofreading was already practically perfect! I mostly added running headers, brought chapter titles down from the headers into the body (tweaking the formatting), used nop instead of blank line... things like that. I mostly left all your annotations intact, unless I found a suitable WS substitute for a wikilink that originally pointed to a WP article. Glad I "found" the text... It was worth the read :) Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Mainspace page chapter titling for Economic Sophisms
Hello. I was just wondering how I should title Mainspace pages for the above work. Economic Sophisms/Chapter I... or /Chapter 1... or by actual chapter titles? My assumption is /Chapter 1, but I didn't want to jump the gun and have to have a bunch of pages eventually moved. Thanks, AKA Londonjackbooks 21:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would do chapter numbers. I think the convention is to use arabic, not roman, numerals, so Chapter 1, Chapter 2, etc. would probably be best. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. AKA Londonjackbooks 15:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Page missing in Path of the Law
If you're around, I noticed that the last page of this essay (pg. 478) is missing. Not sure whether you had the ability to add it or not. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Disregard for now. I think I will eventually upload the entire Volume in which this article is contained. We have a clearinghouse for them as it is. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Updated scripts
Hi Spangineer. I edited your monobook.js to update you to the latest version of TemplateScript. You were using a much older version called regex menu framework, so you should notice a lot of improvements. A few of the big changes:

I also updated deprecated functions, made your scripts HTTPS-compatible, and moved them to common.js so they work in all skins. Let me know if anything breaks. :) — Pathoschild 03:35, 02 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I also updated your Running header.js to use TemplateScript, updated the code to reflect the latest MediaWiki changes and conventions (like using ajax instead of  to fetch data from the API), and made the script self-contained so users don't need to enable anything separately. — Pathoschild 17:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Spangineer (háblame) 22:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

== URGENT: Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December ==

''This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.'' I wanted to follow-up on an message I sent you in September regarding the need for you to sign a confidentiality agreement by 15 2,015 (OTRS users have until 31  2,015) in order to maintain your access from Wikimedia to nonpublic information.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 2,014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are transitioning to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 2,015 (OTRS users have until 31  2,015) to retain their access. You are receiving this message because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 2,015, you will lose your access to nonpublic information.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 2,015 (OTRS users have until 31  2,015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

''If you wish to stop receiving these notices, you may remove yourself from this list. Please note that doing so will not prevent you from losing related user rights after the 15 2,015 deadline.''

Thank you,

Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

''Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery, 06:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC) • Access to nonpublic information policy/MassMessages/Follow-up notice to volunteers • m:Talk:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign